“A THEOLOGY OF OPTIMISM”

 

A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear

Sunday, January 25, 2009

All Souls Unitarian Church

Indianapolis, Indiana

 

A group of elderly Jewish men meet every Wednesday for a coffee and a chat. They drink their coffee and then sit for hours discussing the world situation. Usually, their discussion is very negative. 

One day, Moishe surprises his friends by announcing, loud and clear, "You know what? I've now become an optimist." 

Everyone is totally shocked and all conversation dries up. 

But then Sam notices something isn't quite right and he says to Moishe, "Hold on a minute, if you're an optimist, why are you looking so worried?" 

Moishe replies, "Do you think it's easy being an optimist?" 

 

            Actually, I’ve found that it is very easy to be an optimist.  All you have to do is ignore those things that turn your thoughts away from optimism.  You know, like the news.  Or the prices of things.  Or weather forecasts.  Or the traffic.  Or deadlines.  Or calories.  Or home repair.  Or bills in the mail.  Or housecleaning.  Or getting older.  Or spam, Or . . . 

            Yes, it’s easy to be an optimist.  Just don’t let your mind flash on any of these things, and you’ve got it made. 

 

One thing I discovered in preparing this sermon.  Pessimism is a better resource for humor than optimism, because a pessimist can poke fun at the optimist, but the optimist can’t be negative about the pessimist.  Here are a couple more. 

 

The field worker was getting older and forgetful, but he always had a cheerful disposition, always the optimist.  When the crew broke for lunch, he suddenly looked at his friend with dismay.  “Oh no!” he said, “I forgot to bring my lunch.”  He paused a minute and added, “And it’s a good thing I did.  I left my teeth at home, too.” 

 

An optimist accidently fell off the Empire State Building, and when he passed the fourth floor he said to himself, “Well, so far, so good!”

 

That is why so many comedians do pessimist “schtick.”  Here is a little from Woody Allen, for example: 

 

o       It seems the world is divided into good and bad people. The good ones may sleep better but the bad ones seem to enjoy the waking hours much more.  (adapted) 

 

o       You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.

 

o       My luck is getting worse and worse. Last night, for instance, I was mugged by a Quaker. 

           

It is a challenge for me even to come up with an optimist joke.

 

            The philosophical grounding of pessimism is actually pretty sound.  Two hundred years ago the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued for pessimism by pointing out how weak human reason is when pitted against human will.  Human desires such as for food and shelter, longings for pleasure, and so forth, are much stronger forces than human rational thought.  So in life, whenever a choice comes down to what we want, and what our reason tells us what we ought, the want is bound to win most, if not all, of the time.  So pessimism is the stronger and more realistic perspective.  Don’t expect others to follow high ideals too closely. 

            The logic of his argument is pretty hard to counter, for deep down we know that so many of the choices we make (or more likely that we see others make) are based more solidly on what is wanted, and our rational mind is rallied to find some justification for what is chosen.  That’s why there’s the word “rationalizing” or “rationalization.”  Because our reason can be twisted and shaped to justify our actions; our will is stronger than our reason. 

            What’s more is that the philosopher who is the godfather of optimism offers, I’m afraid to confess, a much weaker argument than that of Schopenhauer.  The philosopher of optimism was Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz, a 17th century German.  His argument went this way, more or less:  God could make the world any way God wanted, and since God chose to make it this way, rather than some other way, it is this way for a divine reason.  This must then be the “best of all possible worlds,” because if a better way to make the world were possible, then, God would have designed it that way.  Earthquakes and diseases, Leibniz argued, have a divine purpose, and all things work together for good.  We just don’t always know God’s plan. 

            Oh, give me a break!  If we don’t know God’s plan, then how is it that we know God couldn’t make a world without Hurricane Katrina and AIDS.  The French philosopher Voltaire famously mocked Leibniz’s argument that “this is the best of all possible worlds” in his comedy novella Candide.  The argument is easily mocked, and it’s no wonder the book is a comedy – after all, as I say, pessimism is a more productive source of humor than optimism.  Especially when the optimist is the butt of the joke.  Voltaire may have been the Woody Allen of his time. 

 

            But if you can get past the jokes, one is left wondering, why be an optimist?  If the pessimism can be so easily justified, and optimism so easily mocked, why choose to be optimistic. 

            The easiest answer to that question is the simple and plain fact that optimism works.  There is an almost endless set of scientific studies to confirm that people who are optimistic are happier in life than those who are pessimistic.  Those who are successful in life overwhelmingly tend to be those who have a positive outlook on life.  Those who approach life with a positive attitude are more pleasant to be around, and tend to have more friends.  Optimists have happier marriages.  Optimists live longer. 

            So on a very practical level, your chances for happiness in life are much higher if you are an optimist rather than a pessimist.  Modern studies have confirmed this, but the principle has been known intuitively throughout the ages. 

            Pessimists may make the best comedians, hands down, but the successful and inspiring people we know are overwhelmingly optimists.  Here is a sample through the ages: 

 

o       Eleanor Roosevelt:  “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” 

 

o       Thoreau:  “Go confidently in the direction of your dreams!  Live the life you’ve imagined.”

 

o       Dr. Samuel Johnson (18th century essayist): “It is worth a thousand pounds to have the habit of looking on the bright side of things.” 

 

o       Helen Keller:  “No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new heaven to the horizon of the spirit.” 

 

o       John Milton:  “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell and a hell of heaven.” 

 

o       Albert Camus:  “In the midst of winter, I learned there was an invincible summer.” 

 

o       Frank Lloyd Wright: “The thing always happens that you really believe in, and the belief in a thing makes it happen. 

 

o       Abraham Lincoln: “Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.” 

 

o       William James: “The greatest revolution of our generation is the discovery that human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.” 

 

So on a very practical level, at least, the argument for optimism is simple: it works.  It works for happiness, it works for success.  It works. 

 

            But I suggest there are other reasons for looking at life positively.  There is a religious justification. 

            Religion is, I think, what we human beings use to understand our life as meaningful, as having some value and purpose.  We do this when we find the world is on our side, when we feel we are at home in the universe we find. 

            In his classic book, Varieties of Religious Experience, philosopher and psychologist William James quoted writer Charles Kingsley on how we can find meaning in a positive orientation toward the world.  Kingsley wrote: 

 

“When I walk the fields, I am impressed now and then with an innate feeling that everything I see has meaning, if I could but understand it, and this feeling of being surrounded by truths which I cannot grasp amounts to indescribable awe sometimes.   

 

Here is what religious experience is about:

 

o       You see a star, and feel that there is something more than a star there, that maybe it can guide you if you just let it;

 

o       You hear a piece of music, and feel it is speaking to you beyond the notes and rhythm, that it produces waves of contentment which are meant to flow through you, or waves of discontent that disturb you;

 

o       You feel worthless and inadequate, but in moments of quiet contemplation or even prayer, you are able to find strength within yourself that you didn’t know was there, and you feel complete and worthy once again;”  

 

            It is a bit strange how all this works.  In many ways, looking at the world through a positive lens is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  In another essay, William James said, “Believe that life is worth living, and our belief will help create that fact.” 

            Henry David Thoreau seemed to agree that a positive orientation toward the world around us can help us get through life successfully.  He put it this way: “I believe there is a subtle magnetism in Nature which, if we consistently yield to it, will direct us aright.” 

            Writing over a hundred years ago, James gave an interesting hypothetical example.  He said to imagine a train car filled with passengers being robbed by just a few armed men.  No one makes a move, because they fear being shot.  But if everyone on board suddenly stood up and rushed the robbers, if each passenger believed that everyone else on the train would join in overpowering the robbers, the robbers wouldn’t have a chance.  Really, the only piece that is missing is the belief, the faith, that everyone else would act.  Then James observes: 

 

“There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming.  Although (some) scientific absolutists insist that faith running ahead of scientific evidence is the ‘lowest kind of immorality,’ it seems clear that more often than not, faith in a fact can help create that fact.” 

 

            “Faith in a fact can help create that fact.”  This is what all those successful and inspirational people were trying to say when I quoted them earlier.  This is the religious foundation of optimism.  Faith in a fact can help create that fact. 

 

            Let me offer an example closer to home.  Six or seven years ago, this congregation desperately needed new bathrooms.  Groups were formed to figure out how we can make that happen, and after lots of conversation it was obvious that if we are constructing new bathrooms, we ought to refurbish other parts of the building and put in an elevator and upgrade the organ and remodel the offices, and on and on.  It was a dream, but one that caught on. 

            To do what we wanted to do required a bit more million dollars or more.  That seemed like an insurmountable challenge.  And in fact, it was surmountable only on one condition.  It would not happen unless we as a congregation believed it could happen.  Various groups worked diligently over years to help convince us, to get us to believe the fact that we could do it. 

            That is exactly what it took.  To believe.  Faith in a fact can help create that fact.

That is how an optimistic outlook can help shape a positive and meaningful life. 

 

            But there is another religious factor in looking at life through a positive lens like optimism.  This element comes directly from our Unitarian and Universalist traditions. 

 

            The central issue of our religious tradition was, and still is, the dignity of human nature.  In this country, during the early 1800s, the doctrine of original sin was commonly accepted in the New England Puritan culture.  That doctrine proposed that each of us is born with the stain of sin, that even new babies are servants of the devil, and that the human soul’s default position is on the side of evil. 

            Those who would come to be called Unitarian or Universalist objected strongly to this doctrine.  People are not born evil, they argued, but with the natural capacity for both good and evil.  Whether we develop into good or bad character rests on the nurture of our soul.  The metaphor of cultivation of the soul, like the cultivation of a garden, was commonly used.  David Robinson’s biography of Ralph Waldo Emerson put it this way: 

 

"The repeated turn of the word 'culture' or 'cultivation' in Unitarian sermons and devotional literature reveals a conception of the soul based upon the organic analogy of germination, development and fruition....  Just as a plant needed direct and careful culture in order to grow and be productive, the human soul required a constant attention to bring it to its full capacity.  Moreover, the development of both the living plant and the soul seemed to be directed by an inner potential, a force which, if it were not hindered or altered, would assure a well-proportioned and continuing process of growth." 

 

Emerson once said that the religious task before us is to “grow a soul.”  The word used to describe this process was “self-culture” – cultivating the self as one would cultivate a plant – and practically every Unitarian minister had a sermon on the topic of “self-culture.” 

            The bottom line is that while the wider culture believed the human soul to be naturally oriented toward evil, the Unitarians found the strong capacity for good to be an innate part of each person.  And while the doctrine of original sin allowed that a person’s soul could be saved only through God’s intervention, by the late 1800s, Unitarians were speaking of a doctrine they called “salvation by character.”  It suggests that the end of the religious quest is not in fact correct belief.  The litmus test of religion is not to be found in creedal formulations.  Rather, the religious task is the nurture of that natural capacity in all of us for good.  Salvation by character.

            This idea we inherit, from self-culture and salvation by character to us today in our current Unitarian Universalist statement of principles.  It I s no coincidence that this concept is, in fact, the very first of seven UU principles adopted in 40 years ago.  It is this:  We respect the “inherent worth and dignity of every person.” 

            This statement is an optimistic view of humanity.  Not everyone is a good person, but everyone has that potential.  Not everyone has a well-cultivated character, but everyone, by virtue of their humanity, has inherent worth and dignity. 

 

            In other words, in addition to the fact that looking at the word through an optimistic lens actually works – it contributes to personal happiness.  In addition to the fact that seeing life through optimistic eyes affirms the religious task of making life a meaningful quest.  In addition to all that, our Unitarian and Universalist tradition directs us toward embracing a positive view of humanity.  The default condition for being human is having inherent worth and dignity and the innate capacity for choosing good. 

            I grant that pessimism is not without its value.  It helps us to approach a world that has manifold dangers with caution.  It helps us keep perspective.  It helps us keep from taking ourselves too seriously, and it often does so through humor.  And humor can be healing. 

            But in the end, optimism has stronger power to keep us going and keep us whole.  In his great essay on “Compensation,” Emerson expressed it in a single sentence describing the human soul as having infinite potential.  “The Soul,” he wrote,

 

“refuses limits, and always affirms an Optimism, never a Pessimism.” 

 

            The religious aspiration for optimism is expressed in these familiar words of 19th century Unitarian minister Theodore Parker: 

 

“Be ours a religion which, like sunshine, goes everywhere;

            its temple, all space;

            its shrine, the good heart;

            its creed, all truth;

its ritual, works of love;

            its profession of faith, divine living.” 

 

 


READING by Christopher Orlet

 

Early on every thinking (person) makes the conscious or unconscious decision whether to view the cup of life as half full, or dry as the Garagum Desert. Those whose cup is half full are the world’s optimists, the Pollyannas and the kind of people to be avoided at all costs, particularly at parties. In America they are, according to Gallup, the majority (64 percent). These are the same folks who wave flags, join the PTA, bet on the Cubs, and get caught in thunderstorms without an umbrella and hopefully catch pneumonia. Pessimists, by my estimate, make up about 10 percent of the American population. The other 26 percent couldn’t care less, and were probably too busy watching professional wrestling to bother answering the survey. Curiously, Kenyans are the world’s most optimistic people, though god knows why. And their neighbors in Zimbabwe are the most pessimistic, which raises the question: what do the Zimbabs know that the Kenyans don’t?

My suspicion is that the reason for the generally low opinion held of the pessimist is related to his close ties to the critic, the cynic, the misanthrope, the whiner and the curmudgeon. Personally, the only one of these people I find objectionable is the whiner. The critic plays a vital role in society by helping us to distinguish the gold from the dross, the wheat from the chaff. The cynic - who by definition distrusts people’s motives - is the type I want checking other people’s baggage at the airport, though not necessarily my own. The misanthrope is a harmless cuss, keeping mainly to herself and bothering no one, asking only that you not bother her. And the loveable curmudgeon is responsible for most of literature’s best quotations, maxims and aphorisms. But the whiner is another animal altogether. The whiner has no saving grace whatsoever, and is as annoying as fingers on a dry chalkboard.

I find the pessimist to be, if not exactly pleasant, then at least sincere. You always know what a pessimist is thinking, and if you don’t he will likely tell you anyway. The optimist, on the other hand, has always struck me as an imposter, walking around with her nose toward the heavens as if she inhabited a better world than you and me, a land of warm green meadows where the sun always shines and there is never a drought because of it. Not only that but the optimist is forever hypocritically criticizing your negativity as though it were some kind of birth defect. The pessimist does not go around saying, "Quit being so dadgum happy!" Or "Stop that smiling will you!" But the optimist has no problem trying to change your natural disposition. "Smile!" she snaps. "Quit being so pessimistic!"   . . . 

Since the optimist has failed miserably in transforming the pessimist through various methods of harassment and blacklisting, she has come to rely more and more heavily on pseudo-science and quackery to make her case. Such a study, undertaken recently by the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, found that optimists live longer and are healthier than pessimists. By reviewing medical records of 839 people living around Rochester, Minnesota, researchers were able to relate a patient's health and longevity to his or her outlook on life, and found that pessimists are less likely to reach their life expectancy. This presupposes that pessimists necessarily want to live longer, which is highly debatable, particularly if you have to spend your life around Rochester, Minnesota.

The godfather of the positive-thinking mafia was the Rev. Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, whose famous book of sermons The Power of Positive Thinking launched the multi-billion dollar self-help book industry and gave wings to the motivational speaker racket.. . . 

The psychologist Julie K. Norem has done all us critics a great service with her book, The Power of Negative Thinking. Unlike the Rev. Dr. Peale, Dr. Norem has her lovely toes planted firmly in the black soil of this world and helpfully suggests that one sure-fire way to avoid embarrassment, disaster and heart-break is by "imagining all of the worst-case scenarios." This is Dr. Norem’s prescription so as not to be taken off guard by sudden and unpleasant surprises. Conversely, if Dr. Peale were delivering a talk, and suddenly found his notes whisked away by a cyclone wind and his bloomers set afire, his positive thinking would scarcely see him through the remainder of his sermon, which is no doubt a good thing for those of us in the audience. . . . 

Oscar Wilde believed the basis for optimism was sheer terror - that optimists are simply unable to deal with the likely outcomes and common tragedies of life. In other words, the optimist lives in a deluded, unreal mind-state whose sunny, evergreen landscapes in no way resemble the real world. The optimist, it follows, may be said to have mental health issues, which explains Havelock Ellis’ observation that "the place where optimism flourishes is the lunatic asylum." Pessimism, then, tempered with a fine sense of humor and the ability to laugh at life’s numerous and constant absurdities, may be the healthiest response of all. And I say that with all of the unbounded confidence and positivity of a true sourpuss.